33. THE SALVIAN INTERDICT
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK FORTY-THREE/THE S A L V I A N INTERDICT 133 in his favor. 4. Even if the rent is not yet due, Labeo says that this interdict is inapplicable unless the lodger is prepared to pay the rent. Furthermore, if he has paid the rent for six months and six months' rent is owing, he will not effectively invoke the interdict unless he pays the following six months' rent, always provided that a special agreement has been made in renting the house that he may not move before the end of a year, or of a certain period. The same applies if someone has rented a house for several years and the time has not yet elapsed. For since the pledges are given as security for the entire lease, it follows that one should say the interdict does not apply unless they are released. 5. It must be noted that the praetor has not here insisted that the property should be among the goods of the lessee, or that it should be a pledge, but that it should have been brought in by way of pledge. So even if the property is different and of a kind that may not be retained by way of pledge, still if it has been brought in by way of pledge, this interdict will have scope. But what has not even been brought in by way of pledge cannot be retained by the landlord either. 6. This interdict is perpetual and is given against successors and to successors. 2 GAIUS,Provincial Edict, book 26: This interdict will undoubtedly lie effectively in favor of a lodger even with respect to those things that are not his own, but happen to have been lent or hired to him or left in his keeping. THE SALVIAN INTERDICT 1 JULIAN, Digest, book 49: If a tenant brings a female slave on the farm by way of pledge and sells her, then to secure what is born to her when she is in the keeping of the buyer, an effective interdict should be granted. 1. If the tenant has by way of pledge brought property to a farm belonging to two persons, so as to provide security to each in full, they will rightly be able to avail themselves individually of the Salvian Interdict against a stranger. But if this interdict is granted between themselves, the case of the possessor will be better. And if it comes to proceedings, so that the property is made over as pledge to each in proportion to share, an utilis actio will have to be granted both against strangers and between themselves by which they will each secure half shares of a single possession. 2. It will be agreed that the same principle should be observed if a tenant brings in by way of pledge a thing which he had in common with someone else, so that the right of suing will be given for half the pledge. 2 ULPIAN, Edict, book 73: In the Salvian Interdict, if someone has brought in pledges to a farm owned by two persons in common, the possessor will prevail, and they must have recourse to a Servian action. BOOK FORTY-TI-IREE/THE SALVIAN INTERDICT 133 in his favor. 4. Even if the rent is not yet due, Labeo says that this interdict is inapplicable unless the lodger is prepared to pay the rent. Furthermore, if he has paid the rent for six months and six months' rent is owing, he will not effectively invoke the interdict unless he pays the following six months' rent, always provided that a special agreement has been made in renting the house that he may not move before the end of a year, or of a certain period. The same applies if someone has rented a house for several years and the time has not yet elapsed. For since the pledges are given as security for the entire lease, it follows that one should say the interdict does not apply unless they are released. 5. It must be noted that the praetor has not here insisted that the property should be among the goods of the lessee, or that it should be a pledge, but that it should have been brought in by way of pledge. So even if the property is different and of a kind that may not be retained by way of pledge, still if it has been brought in by way of pledge...